I wonder if it is legally possible to use red-light cameras to enforce the cars turn right only/streetcars proceed straight phase, to ensure no cars are proceeding straight through the intersection. Cars aren't given a red signal here (hence why red-light cams might not be permissible), but they also aren't given permission to continue straight through the intersection.
The 'Red Light Camera' legislation is specific in it being only red lights. Again, I have to state that there is no restriction on that light being sequential, flashing, or solid, but a flashing red light is not usable for this instance, as it indicates 'stop, then proceed when clear'. *Exceptions are allowed and will be posted by signs*!
If, for some reason, cyclists need a separate lane to cross the intersection, that will be done with separate lane lights for cyclists. In the event, for many reasons, I think it best that cyclists dismount and walk across the intersection with pedestrians using the 'walk' phase of the right turn light sequence. Note reference to a separate 'right turn light'. The question is how delineated that lane needs to be, a curb is indicated as being minimal, but painted lanes appear to be acceptable. That separate turn lane is desirable and discussed prior for a number of reasons. The answers are extant, have been for some time, it's just that Planning don't seem to have a clue on this.
I wonder if it is legally possible to use red-light cameras to enforce the cars turn right only/streetcars proceed straight phase, to ensure no cars are proceeding straight through the intersection. Cars aren't given a red signal here (hence why red-light cams might not be permissible), but they also aren't given permission to continue straight through the intersection.
This is the nub of discussion from what I read of the legislation. The legislation speaks in terms of "lanes"....and my take is that the yellow painted strip areas at intersections denote 'lanes', and thus can and should have their own lights if there's a solid red blocking forward travel through the intersection.
This is why in my original proposal, I suggested having the red light on during the cars turn right only/streetcars proceed straight phase, but as was discussed a few pages back, that might introduce legal complications for bikes going straight through the intersection.
This is a nuanced and excellent point, but since the City has already stated (gist) "Bikes should proceed forward from the curb lane", they've already complicated their case since to do so from a lane that is turning right only is madness *especially intersections with track junctions*. In my view, as an avid and accomplished cyclist, cyclists are far better off, as is traffic altogether, if they dismount and cross with pedestrians. Otherwise a light sequence phase will be necessary for cyclists, and/or a 'box' situated in an almost impossible situation for safety on the tracks.
The City really hasn't thought this out at all. There are solutions available, excellent ones, and it will cost more money. So what? An extra $M to safely prove a concept which must succeed?
How freakin' cheap is this city? They have no compunctions of multi-billion $ dreams of one stop subways to Scarborough, Rail Deck Parks, and elevators to the Moon...
The most infuriating part about the Red Light Camera legislation is it gives the City a means to pay back the cost of those cameras and associated lights from the fines assessed. The Province has bent over backwards to write that legislation to incentivize Red Light Cameras.
This isn't rocket science, but it is Toronto...
